• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Global Warming Happy Fun-Time

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

>

That is a good find pixel BUT..

While I wouldn't argue with the good scientists at atmos.uiuc.edu/doesn't the title of that bar graph merely suggest the rate of growth during the winter season after the preceding summer season? Or maybe I was reading it wrong.

Admittedly 2013 looks good so far but to be conclusive it should show the rates of the previous summer recession, if that rate was just as severe in the other direction then that still could bring up some doubt.
 
pixelsmith said:
Which ones? The link below is where the "97% of scientists agree" comes from. what a bunch of bull$hit. BTW- Many climate scientists over the past few years have reversed their warming opinions because there has been NO warming for the past 17 years yet CO2 continues to climb.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Click to expand...
And the study looking at more than 11,000 years of climate (linked to in my above post) is just a conspiracy by a bunch of scientists who hate our way of life....

Sure....

Even if mankind plays absolutely no role in climate change, what would happen if we actually listened to these (vast majority) of climate scientists? We might just end up with cleaner air, fewer children suffering from - and dying from - asthma, a population with fewer bronchial problems, less of a dependence on oil (foreign or domestic), no oil spills, a decline in certain kinds of cancer, cleaner drinking water and a stronger infrastructure.

Oh the horror.

Now imagine what our infrastructure, our climate and our planet will look like if they're right and we continue sticking our collective heads in the sand.

In the meantime:

Phoenix may not survive climate change - Salon.com
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I didn't say anything apart from it's best to agree to disagree. You can trot out all the evidence you want, but it's only useful if it's free of political bias.
Click to expand...
Your side of the argument is the one with a political bias. Your "side" is the one getting funding only if it leans towards the "warmist" view. Your side is the one who has predicted melting himalayans, 50 million global warming refuges by 2010, the 20 foot rise in sea levels, more hurricanes, floods etc etc etc.. none of which has come true. Your side relies on a political body called the IPCC for its "science" unfortunately the leader who is a retired railroad engineer and soft porn writer has been involved in a few scandals along with many IPCC contributors who have been exposed for manipulating data, controlling the peer review process, misappropriation of funds, and now with ClimateGate 3 happening we have 220,000 more emails to go thru from these scientists showing how the inner circle controlled everything to make up their own science. Your "side" is purely political, mine is not.
 
RenaissanceLady said:
And the study looking at more than 11,000 years of climate (linked to in my above post) is just a conspiracy by a bunch of scientists who hate our way of life....

Sure....

Even if mankind plays absolutely no role in climate change, what would happen if we actually listened to these (vast majority) of climate scientists? We might just end up with cleaner air, fewer children suffering from - and dying from - asthma, a population with fewer bronchial problems, less of a dependence on oil (foreign or domestic), no oil spills, a decline in certain kinds of cancer, cleaner drinking water and a stronger infrastructure.

Oh the horror.

Now imagine what our infrastructure, our climate and our planet will look like if they're right and we continue sticking our collective heads in the sand.

In the meantime:

Phoenix may not survive climate change - Salon.com
Click to expand...
What vast majority? Only 77 scientists make up the "97 %" thing you and others keep talking about. We are not talking about cleaner air, oil dependence, oil spills cancer drinking water etc etc... see this is why it is hard discussing global warming with people who do not know what they are talking about. The number one issue is CO2 and if it is in fact causing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming AND if it doubles, will the temps double... that's it. Not one climate scientist on either side is disputing the need for clean air, water, oil, etc etc... not one.
 
Pixel, Like I've said before, I really don't have a side. I think one side (let say yours) is ignoring the science, and the other side (let say Al Gore) is exaggerating the facts.
Both sides have political biases, yours is worried about the economic repercussions of lessening the dependence on oil. The other side is looking to sell people ridiculous carbon credits.
This is why I defer to the climate scientists. They're the ones actually studying the climate - everyone else just twists the facts to meet their needs.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Pixel, Like I've said before, I really don't have a side. I think one side (let say yours) is ignoring the science, and the other side (let say Al Gore) is exaggerating the facts.
Both sides have political biases, yours is worried about the economic repercussions of lessening the dependence on oil. The other side is looking to sell people ridiculous carbon credits.
This is why I defer to the climate scientists. They're the ones actually studying the climate - everyone else just twists the facts to meet their needs.
Click to expand...
but your scientists are affiliated with the IPCC... a political group delivering a political summary used to dictate global policy. my scientists are not all affiliated with the IPCC many would like to be but your scientists are admittedly controlling the peer review process as well as refusing FOIA requests to get at the data they say is used to achieve what you are defending. Again, the problem here is you know very little about the process or the players.
 
ClimateGate 3 is now revealing over 220,ooo more emails from your corrupt scientists and how they manipulated data and the peer review process. stay tuned for further updates about the bogus science that Angelo and others here subscribe to.
 
Pixel, who are your scientists? Do they work with the Heartland Institute, because the last time you attempted to debate this topic, that was the case.
 
Some scientists
Angel of Ioren said:
Pixel, who are your scientists? Do they work with the Heartland Institute, because the last time you attempted to debate this topic, that was the case.
Click to expand...
Some are affiliated some are not.
So rather than defend your science, the political group your scientists are working for, the admitted fudging of data, controlled peer review process, misappropriation of funds, and more, you want to attack a 29 year old non profit National research organization? really? You can NOT defend your own science or the players in your scam... . Why is that?
 
The Heartland Institute? Dude, it's a Libertarian think tank! How is that not political? You are so funny when it comes to this topic. I've already stated my position, which I guess you skipped.

Show me a study by a CLIMATE SCIENTIST!!!! Not a chemist, not a mathematician - a climate scientist....
 
You have the burden of proof. Show me a study and the data by a climate scientist that defends with empirical proof that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. That is the basis for the whole CAGW movement. I will save you time... you can't because they claim the original data can't be found. In reading the ClimateGate emails from your scientists they admit they would rather destroy the data than give it to another scientist trying to disprove their claims.... which goes against the Scientific Method.
 
This is getting old Pixel - I have done so in the past and you basically respond with some sort of variation of "lmfao." Obviously, it's a waste, and I hope our short exchange has shown any new members to this forum what a waste it is attempting to discuss this with you.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
The Heartland Institute? Dude, it's a Libertarian think tank! How is that not political? You are so funny when it comes to this topic. I've already stated my position, which I guess you skipped.

Show me a study by a CLIMATE SCIENTIST!!!! Not a chemist, not a mathematician - a climate scientist....
Click to expand...
So a known to be corrupt inter governmental political body with a known to be corrupt leader who is a retired railroad engineer and soft porn writer that is employing known corrupt scientists who admit in their own emails how they are corrupting the system is more credible than a non profit research organization? lmao... ok then..:rolleyes:
 
pixelsmith said:
So a known to be corrupt inter governmental political body with a known to be corrupt leader who is a retired railroad engineer and soft porn writer that is employing known corrupt scientists who admit in their own emails how they are corrupting the system is more credible than a non profit research organization? lmao... ok then..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Let me turn it around: LMAO: the Heartland Institute also had scientists supporting tobacco companies... so, are cigarettes good for you? YOU love CO2...
 
this is getting old fast. I think most people reading this will realize you are protecting a bunch of crooks who are trying to bullshit people into thinking that normal planetary climate changes are caused by the 3% contribution of CO2 that humans emit.
97% of CO2 is naturally occurring so if CO2 is the bad guy causing global warming then you have to tax the planet.
 
pixelsmith said:
this is getting old fast. I think most people reading this will realize you are protecting a bunch of crooks who are trying to bullshit people into thinking that normal planetary climate changes are caused by the 3% contribution of CO2 that humans emit.
97% of CO2 is naturally occurring so if CO2 is the bad guy causing global warming then you have to tax the planet.
Click to expand...


When in doubt, deflect deflect deflect!!!!!
 
Back
Top